Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by stumason
The word "theory" in science doesn't mean "best guess", it is backed by empirical evidence...

Yes exactly, most people don't realize for something in science to be a 'theory' (scientific theory, or empirical theory) it has to be testable and repeatable and has to be based on a formal system of logic. If any part of the science is found to be illogical it's not a theory.

It's not just people assuming or guessing.

If it doesn't fit the scientific criteria it's known as a hypothesis.

Edit; Oh btw, creationism is a hypothesis.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Wally Hope]

Both creationism and evolution are theories. Neither one of us was there. We can only look at the evidence we have today (i.e. North Atlantic Ridge, Grand Canyon) and make conclusions. Evolutions assume no world wide flood for philosophical reason and therefore think those things happen over millions of years. Creationist for philosophical reasons look at those two examples and say evidence for a flood. Same observations different assumptions. At least creationist admit theirs. Both camps are theories. But thanks for the theories 101 lesson.

Originally posted by andre18

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING.

That’s not how it works......

It is understood that because we don’t know what happened before the big bang we can’t really say what caused it. You can claim it’s god all you want but that doesn’t change the fact unless you give some scientific evidence as to what god is and the mechanism of how god created the big bang then you’ve got nothing but magic.

Now scientists aren’t saying the universe came out of nothing – which really would be magic. They are saying we don’t know what came before the big bang but from what we can gather, from what the evidence we have at the moment can tell us, is that there was a beginning 13.5 billion years ago. What caused that beginning is still anyone’s guess but because we don’t know what caused that beginning doesn’t and shouldn’t meant god did it because you still have to demonstrate how god did it and what god is.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by andre18]

I apologize for being confusing on this one. I do NOT believe in the big bang, it has many flaws (for example all the galaxies should spin in the same direction but they do not) I simply invoked it because if you believe in the big bang or the creation model you must believe that the universe had a beginning. Creationist believe (most likely) in white hole cosmology

creation.com...

Originally posted by stuff1
Both creationism and evolution are theories.

What predictions does creationism make?
How does it explain the natural world? (for example human chromosome 2)
How can it be tested?
How can it be falsified?

Creationism isn't even a hypothesis, it's just a biased opinion.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by stuff1

I used to be a Christian Redneck Flat Earth Creationist, but then one day I picked a book about evolution and read it and when I was done I was a Evolutionist who later became fund of Taoist philosophy. As you're surely an expert on evolution would you care to tell me, with which of these two species (if the theory is correct) we share a closer common ancestor, a tiger or a wolf? Also which of these two is closer to us, an elephant or an armadillo? Also ancestor wise (great-great....grandparent) which is closer to an oran gutan, a bonobo or a human?

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

If you are Taoist than you are pantheist. Which means you believe we are all part of the universe. The 2nd law of thermodynamics creates a huge problem for you. If the universe had a beginning, how can we all be part of it? Another way of saying this is the universe which you worship is finite. You are worshiping a finite deity

[edit on 28-5-2009 by stuff1]

Originally posted by stuff1

Originally posted by rhinoceros
I used to be a Christian Redneck Flat Earth Creationist, but then one day I picked a book about evolution and read it and when I was done I was a Evolutionist who later became fund of Taoist philosophy. As you're surely an expert on evolution would you care to tell me, with which of these two species (if the theory is correct) we share a closer common ancestor, a tiger or a wolf? Also which of these two is closer to us, an elephant or an armadillo? Also ancestor wise (great-great....grandparent) which is closer to an oran gutan, a bonobo or a human?

If you are Taoist than you are pantheist. Which means you believe we are all part of the universe. The 2nd law of thermodynamics creates a huge problem for you. If the universe had a beginning, how can we all be part of it? Another way of saying this is the universe which you worship is finite. You are worshiping a finite deity

I didn't say that I was a Taoist. I said I was fund of Taoist philosophy. You know, stuff like:

The ultimate goal: harmony with the Tao
The goal for wu wei is to get out of your own way, so to speak. This is like when you are playing an instrument and if you start thinking about playing the instrument, then you will get in your own way and interfere with your own playing. It is aimless action, because if there was a goal that you need to aim at and hit, then you will develop anxiety about this goal. Zhuangzi made a point of this, where he writes about an archer who at first didn't have anything to aim at. When there was nothing to aim at, the archer was happy and content with his being. He was practicing wu wei. But, then he set up a target and "got in his own way." He was going against the Tao and the natural course of things by having to hit that goal.

I certainly don't believe into any deities. I'm an atheist (with a twist of agnosticism).

p.s. You failed to answer a big part of my post. You know, the wolf vs. tiger, elephant vs. armadillo, human vs. bonobo stuff. You may try again. If you don't, I must assume that you really are a creationist to begin with and you never bothered to learn modern evolutionary synthesis. In this case this entire debate is pointless as you're here to only spread your propaganda..

p.p.s. I really would like to be religious. I don't care about afterlife or any of that, but it would be nice if there was cosmic justice and a punishment for the rapists/murderers/violent scum/warmongers and the hateful people alike. How people manage to convince themselves that the great surveillance camera really exists beats me. Perhaps even more bizarre is that many Christians see it fit to for example homo-sexuals to get this kind of a punishment. After all their awful crime is to love another person. In my version of a magic cosmic judgement these hateful Christians would be the first against the wall and burn they would (not for eternity, but for a very long time)

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by stuff1
reply to post by Trolloks

 

...anything over 10 to the power of 50 is considered mathematically impossible to happen randomly. For example you will never drop red, white and blue paint out of an airplane and get an American Flag so that is something that has a random chance of happening that is over 10 to the power of 50.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this line of argument seems redundant when used solely as proof for intelligent creation. Many things exist in the world that are not intelligently created, but are still practically impossible to recreate by chance.

For example: imagine I bought a small island and wanted to create a recognised flag for it. So suppose I dropped red, white and blue paint out of an aeroplane on to the island, photographed the splatter it created, and then used that splatter as the official flag insignia. Suppose I then asked you to try and re-create my flag insignia by dropping paint out of an aeroplane. You wouldn't be able to exactly re-create my flag by chance; in fact, you'd have just as much chance of inadvertantly matching the American flag. Admittedly, what you end up with might look similar to my flag, but only because our brains would classify both as abstract. I also acknowledge that an intelligent mover is needed to throw the paint out the aeroplane, but that's another argument.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by hybris246]

[edit on 28-5-2009 by hybris246]

[edit on 28-5-2009 by hybris246]

[edit on 28-5-2009 by hybris246]

Here's an idea, maybe we are just living out a computer simulation. mankind will eventually, at the current rate , be able to create powerfull enough computers to recreate the big bang, evolution and sophisticated simulation of LIFE,
This will be possible eventually with rate of change with computers (take Sims for example), Therefor you could argue that maybe we are living in the simulation created by a more sophisticated human race. Doesn't really help ith the evolution bit, but just throwing it in the mix

join date + view point. hmm. all I will say is this. if matter needs to be observed to become solid from a wave, then "something" existed before the big bang. as for OP. you go play with unicorns in heaven, I'll wage war in hell. theist

We can see evolution take place on the microscopic level. We have found several pieces to our own evolutionary trail. Animals are constantly adapting to their environment to survive, which by definition would be evolution.

Whats so illogical about it? If you can see it and touch it then its real, we can see evolution what we cant see is god.

Dont get me wrong I belive in a higher power but I believe that higher power isnt some dude that seperate from humanity, as depicted in the bible. He always says he is one with everything but he cant control his own species? He cant make us see the truyth and goodness? He abandoned us because some archaic couple ate some fruit?!! Organized religion is the biggest sham. Think about it in the age before science what did they have to explain the mysteries of the world around them, god. In the age of science what is the one thing that has held us back from further advancement, Organized religions god.

The real god is in all of us the real god isnt some dude thats basically left us for dead. We can make our own fate because we are as much apart of the higher power as it is us. If we would stop doubting ourselves we might be able to get past all the things that are holding us back, which can all almost exclusively be traced back to organized religion. Wars, intolerance, and illogical thought.

If we would just accept that we can make our own future we would have a much better world to live in, wouldnt a real god want us to be happy and living in a peaceful brotherhood with each other?

What does the christian, muslim, jewish, whatever else gods want? Blood. what kind of loving peaceful god would allow some of the things we do to each other?
Not to mention they have completed our evolutionary line, so its not jusst a theory anymore. GET OVER IT!

Your first mistake (...sigh...):

Originally posted by stuff1
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING.

Far as I'm aware, this statement is logically nonsense. T0 coincided with the expansion of matter according to the BB theory. Time starts there. There is no "Before" that. There is no 'First...', except which coincides with expansion. So it's total nonsense to say 'there was nothing, and then there was something'. There never was nothing, in the context of time.

I mean... you even SAY that the theory states that time starts there.


Anyway... what does that have to do with evolution??

reply to post by stuff1


HAHAHA so the SCIENTIFIC FACT, WITH EVIDENCE TO BACK IT, is a conspiracy, and the thing that asks you to blindly follow and believe with nothing other than faith to back it up is the fact?

Wow, thanks, I needed a good laugh today

[edit on 5/28/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

Originally posted by stuff1
Both creationism and evolution are theories. Neither one of us was there. We can only look at the evidence we have today (i.e. North Atlantic Ridge, Grand Canyon) and make conclusions.

Creationism is not a theory sorry, go back to science 101.

Where is your evidence for creation?

There is NONE, except a book written 2000 years ago, sry that's not evidence and it's not testable, or repeatable in a lab. Go ahead and explain how you test your creation 'theory', it's an assertion at best.

A major source of public confusion in the escalating debate between intelligent design and evolution is the question of what a scientific theory actually is...
...In science, a theory is an explanation that binds together various experimentally tested hypotheses to explain some fundamental aspect of nature. For an idea to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be established on the basis of a wide variety of scientific evidence. Its claims must be testable and it must propose experiments that can be replicated by other scientists...
...ID, on the other hand, is not a theory. It is a hypothesis, but it is not even a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to experimentally verify its central claim that a Supreme Being intervened in the creation of life on Earth.

www.livescience.com...

You will predictably disagree with this, but when you want to use a scientific term then you have to abide by the rules of that term. You can't ignore this definition just so you can call your assertions 'theories' in a scientific context. That's why your argument will never work and the only people you will ever convince are the ignorant, christians or not.

Originally posted by stuff1

If you are Taoist than you are pantheist. Which means you believe we are all part of the universe. The 2nd law of thermodynamics creates a huge problem for you. If the universe had a beginning, how can we all be part of it? Another way of saying this is the universe which you worship is finite. You are worshiping a finite deity

[edit on 28-5-2009 by stuff1]

that's not a very good characterisation of Taosim. I'm hardly an expert, but I do enjoy the subject.

The core of the matter is that nothing exists except in contrast with it's opposite. (and things tend to turn into their opposite)

There is no such thing as light, unless there is darkness. There is no such thing as movement, unless contrasted with rest.
There is no such thing as Good, unless Evil exists (this is the bit Christians can't get past)
Furthermore, there is no existence, unless considered alongside lack-of-existance.

In terms of entropy, there is no such thing as order unless chaos exists. And the Taoist in me tells me that sheer chaos is characterised by order-- but I couldn't swear to it.

reply to post by stuff1

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

So you're assuming the principle of causality transcends the universe. Do you have any particular grounds for that, or is this a case of 'as above, so below' as the alchemists used to say?

Besides, it defies comprehension how a perfect, changeless being could create anything without suffering change and departing from perfection.

I'm afraid that knocks the rest of your argument (or rather the argument you copied and pasted without acknowledgement from the first site you linked to in your opening post ) rather flat.

You should have copied and pasted this bit as well. It would have shown us where your head is really at.

it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. Source

'In his heart'! Hilarious.

Oh, by the way: I read through the second link too. More fantastic fewmets - an obscure Ph.D thesis submitted in 1977 claiming to prove that 'galaxies could not have formed from the Big Bang'. Cosmology has moved forward a bit in the generation since that was written (by the way, did he ever get his Ph.D? I find that there's only one copy of his thesis in existence, and that's in the university library.

Guess it's on that one too.

I spared myself your abiogenesis and 'macroevolution' links.

* * *

You know, it's the dishonesty of the 'intelligent design' movement, almost as much as its scientific absurdity, that makes it so repellent - and so worthy of fighting tooth and nail. There are some noble exceptions among creationists, including several ATS members - the name of my friend HeroNumber0 springs to mind - but so many of them are willing to resort to the sleaziest tactics to promote their cause. Don't those who believe in God have the courage of the moral convictions they claim so loudly? If they are trying to sell us the truth, why do they practise so often to deceive?

Any opinions on that, stuff1?

[edit on 28/5/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by stuff1

Originally posted by cancerian42
This is not going to get anywhere. Everyone already has what they want to believe in mind and are unwilling to change, so why argue if you're not willing to change? If you're not willing to accept the truth when/if it appears to you? The beginning is unknown and irrelevant to say the least.

Not true I used to be an atheist evolutionist, I was never given the other side of the story. If people where taught both views and given a choice the majority of people would be creationist. Some people who go to an "Origins" thread must be at least be open to other possibilities.

So now you have made up your mind again even though neither side is proven? And it is not up to people to teach both creationism and evolution, then there would just be some more people wanting their view taught and then if they include that one someone else would want them to teach their view and on and on. And people are given a choice-no one is forced to believe anything unless you are a determinist. And I have yet to see someone on this thread showing an open mind instead of just arguing their own points.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by stuff1

Originally posted by rhinoceros


I didn't say that I was a Taoist. I said I was fund of Taoist philosophy. You know, stuff like:

The ultimate goal: harmony with the Tao
The goal for wu wei is to get out of your own way, so to speak. This is like when you are playing an instrument and if you start thinking about playing the instrument, then you will get in your own way and interfere with your own playing. It is aimless action, because if there was a goal that you need to aim at and hit, then you will develop anxiety about this goal. Zhuangzi made a point of this, where he writes about an archer who at first didn't have anything to aim at. When there was nothing to aim at, the archer was happy and content with his being. He was practicing wu wei. But, then he set up a target and "got in his own way." He was going against the Tao and the natural course of things by having to hit that goal.

I certainly don't believe into any deities. I'm an atheist (with a twist of agnosticism).

p.s. You failed to answer a big part of my post. You know, the wolf vs. tiger, elephant vs. armadillo, human vs. bonobo stuff. You may try again. If you don't, I must assume that you really are a creationist to begin with and you never bothered to learn modern evolutionary synthesis. In this case this entire debate is pointless as you're here to only spread your propaganda..

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

You can't see that you are personifying the "Tao" You are playing with words when you say you "fund of Taoist philosophy" . Whether you "worship" or "fund" either way you identify yourself with a philosophy that is easily invalidated by the second law of thermodynamics. Can you argue that point?

If you are agnostic this means you think there is no way for anyone to know. However, I get to say "How do YOU know there is no way to know" which of course is a self refuting statement. On the other hand I am absolutely sure there is an absolute truth!!

I will answer you wolf vs tiger argument. I like how you are trying to invalidate me as a witness. I respect that you are trying to attack my science or logic. Most people on this board can only quote philosophy arguements. However, I first must ask why you have not attempted to argue against my many anti-evolutionary claims when I started this thread?. If you do not answer those I will assume you accept them.

The answer is I do not know which came first the wolf or the tiger! I could look it up but I will be honest about it. If you want to claim a small victory over that fact than so be it. However, how far must one travel through the fairy tale when one realizes that the first 10 chapters of a book are a farce (evolution of stars, big bang and organic evolution etc) before I can put the book down? But I can't give you that much credit. Most Evolutionist don't even know the answer to those questions, as they are not as pertinent to the evolution of man as birds, monkeys etc.

I think it's amazing that the majority of the posts deal with insults to the credulity of the bible, rather than direct replies to the scientific argument presented by the OP. Big ups to all of you, atheist, believer, or otherwise, who addressed the argument rather than attack the bible, which many of you have no understanding of whatsoever. (not ALL, just many)

I think you can say that things evolve and still be consistent with the Bible. I believe that God created life, all life; however, I believe that the appendix is now a vestigial organ which, at one time, served a purpose. Evolution which is still in the boundaries of Religion.

reply to post by stuff1

Originally posted by hybris246

Originally posted by stuff1
reply to post by Trolloks

 

...anything over 10 to the power of 50 is considered mathematically impossible to happen randomly. For example you will never drop red, white and blue paint out of an airplane and get an American Flag so that is something that has a random chance of happening that is over 10 to the power of 50.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this line of argument seems redundant when used solely as proof for intelligent creation. Many things exist in the world that are not intelligently created, but are still practically impossible to recreate by chance.

For example: imagine I bought a small island and wanted to create a recognised flag for it. So suppose I dropped red, white and blue paint out of an aeroplane on to the island, photographed the splatter it created, and then used that splatter as the official flag insignia. Suppose I then asked you to try and re-create my flag insignia by dropping paint out of an aeroplane. You wouldn't be able to exactly re-create my flag by chance; in fact, you'd have just as much chance of inadvertantly matching the American flag. Admittedly, what you end up with might look similar to my flag, but only because our brains would classify both as abstract. I also acknowledge that an intelligent mover is needed to throw the paint out the aeroplane, but that's another argument.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by hybris246]

Paint going splat on the ground is different than comparing an intelligently designed American flag.

reply to post by one_man24


There is absolutely nothing scientific about the OP,nothing at all.Its called mumbo jumbo.Im all for creationists bringing forward some good arguments,keeps science evolving unlike the stagnant bible.Sadly to date...they have not done so.Makes you wonder why,no?